[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] do not lseek in qcow2 block_status

From: Nir Soffer
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] do not lseek in qcow2 block_status
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 22:42:16 +0200

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 5:50 PM Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <
address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi all!
> bdrv_co_block_status digs bs->file for additional, more accurate search
> for hole
> inside region, reported as DATA by bs since long-ago
>    commit 5daa74a6ebce7543aaad178c4061dc087bb4c705
>    Author: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
>    Date:   Wed Sep 4 19:00:38 2013 +0200
>        block: look for zero blocks in bs->file
> This accuracy is not free: assume we have qcow2 disk. Actually, qcow2
> knows,
> where are holes and where is data. But every block_status request calls
> lseek
> additionally. Recently (and not the first time) we have faced the
> situation,
> when lseek works slow. Of course, it is more about kernel implementation
> of it,
> but why to involve lseek at all, if we have the information on qcow2 level?
> Assume a big disk, full of data, in any iterative copying block job (or img
> convert) we'll call lseek(HOLE) on every iteration, and each of these
> lseeks
> will have to iterate through all metadata up to the end of file. It's
> obviously
> ineffective behavior.

I'm thinking about, how to properly workaround this thing, and I have some
> questions.
> What are the cases, when we really need digging for zeros in bs->file?
> Why in mirror we care about discard vs write_zeros, keeping in mind, that
> block_status will return ZERO instead for unallocated regions in some
> cases, not
> related to guest view of disk (bdrv_unallocated_blocks_are_zero, backing
> file is
> smaller than request.start)?
> And finally, what to do with the problem?
> Obviously, the simplest thing is just revert 5daa74a. What will it break?
> Otherwise, I need to "revert" it in some cases, and, may be, it should be a
> user-defined parameter.. Should it?  And what are the cases? We need to
> "free"
> of 5daa74a at least qcow2.. But again, should it be format-specific
> option, or
> something more generic?
> Then, if it would be separate parameter, how should it interfere with
> want_zeros, or even, should it be want_zeros, reworked a bit to be
> want_lseek?

How about having 2 passes:
1. seek DATA/HOLE for entire image, keep result in memory
2. use the result when modifying ranges

This can also help allocation of clusters in a destination image:
1. seek DATA/HOLE in source image
2. allocate blocks in destination
3. convert using out of order writes *without* causing fragmentation in the
destination image.

Here is an example using this approach when copying images to qem-nbd. This
is a pretty
simplistic single threaded implementation in python, using "qemu-img map"
to find the data
and zero ranges. It is faster than qemu-img convert :-)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]